Thursday, May 19, 2011

We will be convening here at the ZigZag café, Suisse, on Thursdays for conversation and dialogue. I invite you to stop by every Thursday for the question of the day. Your thoughts and participation are most welcome. Pull up a stool, avec un café, un thé, ou un chocolat chaud, et un croissant, and join in here on Thursday at the ZZ café.

For today:

Some people think the problems of humanity could be solved if all religions would just get together and settle their differences. What are your thoughts?

Lukas,Thanks. I believe they are, but this is why some would argue that if we could manage to get around this and come to a unity, then all war and aggression between humans would come to an end.

Nowadays, there seems to be a hope that differences are simply due to arrogance, and if people could be less arrogant, then differences would be dissolved.

I would think that we want to go against the flow and embrace pluralism - in the sense that there are really important differences in religious beliefs that are to be highlighted and maintained. Such a view does not have to embrace arrogance, but it will stress difference as essential to truth and solving the problems of humanity.

I think there are other differences which would have to be tackled too, in order to come closer to a living-together, such as traditions, nationality, poverty. But I am pessimistic because there seem to be some problems arising at the horizon which will challenge this vision, most importantly the rapid growth of humanity.There will come a point when space and nourishment wont suffice any more. If the mindset of nationality will still be present, then goodbye. (Us Germans, us Australians, us US). If a mindset of Us (me and the German other, the Australian other etc) will be prevelant it might be able to partially accomplish this vision. (Not without having to submit to new reglations such as birth control)

It will be a tough process but if people were able to move from "me and my family" to "me and my family and my tribe", from thence to " me, my family and my nation" maybe mankind will be able to move to "me, my family, (my nation) and mankind".The question though is: is it possible for human beings to take billions of others into the same circle of inclusion? It is interesting to follow the debates in the EU in regards to Greece and Ireland (especially the first). There seems to be a draw-back in the minds of some Europeans (away from us Europeans to us Germans, us etc) Although it is understandable because the EU still is an artificial union (people still identify as Spains, as Germans) with different countries and regulations (rumors in Germany about retiring at 69 and the French wanting to pass a law now about retiring at 62), still it challenges the vision of a living-together which we need in order to be able to master upcoming challenges.

Sisyphos,Thanks. People who suggest that religious differences are the culprit tend to promote a notion that if a resolution to this problem was forthcoming, then the others that you mention would disappear. I agree with you though, there are other issues that would remain outstanding, even if religions could manage to settle up.

I'm not as convinced as you however, about the problems of space and food. As I see it, there's plenty, but market forces and nationalism, and here I do agree, prevent the fair use of goods for all.

Sisyphos,True. I think probably not only difficult, but nearly impossible. My prognosis: the EU will eventually fall apart because of what we're seeing in Europe now. The rhetoric will weaken and therefore so will the ties that bind.

Some years ago, I watched a fascinating conversation/debate between Ricoeur and Kung and one of the issues discussed was about religious differences and resolving them as the solution to a new world of peace, goodness, and harmony for all. This was Kung's proposal. Ricoeur thought for a moment and then responded with something like this: it seems highly idealistic and utopian - my wager would be that there is a problem that goes much deeper: sin. And this problem calls for a much deeper solution - redemption.

I, myself, could not map it directly to any of the previous posts (either)... So if Sysiphos did not mean your post, I would be glad, if you could unpack your post or at least explain your view or a not so naive view.

I was talking to you, because I was curious to what you were referring to. To the whole discussion? To a person? To a comment? To a specific argument?"Incredibly, incredibly naive" is a strong statement which I ask you to specify.

I was referencing those who blame religion for humanities problems, particularly violence. It's a strong statement but for a pretty blatant denial of reality. I'm generally going to be suspicious of any easy explanations, but some not only oversimplify issues, they don't even begin to explain phenomenon merely to affirm their particular prejudice. I didn't have a problem with any of the comments, you mentioned scarcity, which I don't think is comprehensive but at least now we're working towards an explanation that actually drives problematic human behavior in a powerful and profound way, particularly when there's breakdown of distribution of resources. You also alluded to the us/them dynamic in group identity. While I think it works for things like race theory or outsiders in French society, it breaks down heuristically when we start applying it to other situations. I'm not sure how far self-assessed empathizing and inclusion go towards actually resolving conflicts or problems. But however, we come down in those discussions, they're very different than "if we just affirmed our spiritual commonality then our utopic vision will finally have a chance at realization.

Joshua,Thanks. And thanks for the clarification that some requested. I was pretty sure what you meant, but appreciated your unpacking it a bit.

I think we have good reasons, as you have argued, to be more realist in our perspectives. Yet it's true that we cannot stop there, but must seek to help people in the complexities they face on different levels.